trump supporters - do you acknowledge that trump has a cult based on personality?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 103
#91
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
How do you explain the fact that nearly every left politician and nearly all the left media outlets stopped calling Trump a threat to democracy since the election?

The simple explanation is that it was electioneering hyperbole, but some people thought it was real.

Had MSNBC said all this week that Trump was a "threat to democracy," they would have lost even more of their cult following, considering democracy has the final say on who is a "threat."


#92
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Charlamagne previously warned Democrats against blaming things like “sexism” and “racism” for Harris’s loss, accusing the Democratic Party of simply being out of touch on major issues.

“I don’t think it’s fair to just chalk up Trump winning to racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, yes, he tapped into all of the worst things America has ever had to offer and there are a lot of people who agree his rhetoric and voted for him because of those reasons, but I truly believe most people voted for him because they want more money in their pockets and they want to feel safe,” he said.
#93
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you explain the fact that nearly every left politician and nearly all the left media outlets stopped calling Trump a threat to democracy since the election?
Because it’s no longer the immediate concern. He’s the president-elect now, so they’re rightly focused on what he’s gearing up to do for the next 4 years.

Let’s recognize something, as the PA example illustrated, Trump was absolutely planning to unleash hell upon this country if he lost. He had already spent the past few months (just as he did in 2020) telling his supporters that the only way he could lose this election is if it were rigged. And as January 6th demonstrated, if his followers decided to turn violent he would have done absolutely nothing to turn down the temperature. He was ready and willing to burn it all to the ground if he didn’t get his way, so for now, the only thing that saved us is the fact that he won. That’s not democracy, the choice of the American people cannot only be followed if he wins.

So now the next threat is what happens in 2028. It’s not really worth getting bent over at the moment because there are so many variables. At his age, we don’t even know if he’ll be alive. But if he’s still kicking, still aware of where he is, and is still expecting prosecutions against him - all very plausible - there is no reason to believe we will not see 2020 on steroids. With criminal immunity and a DOJ full of complete Trump lackeys (which he didn’t have in 2020), there is a very real possibility this one man will plunge us into a civil war.

You cannot possibly tell me I’m wrong on any of that.

#94
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The Charlemagne article says you are wrong.
#95
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing about his article says I’m wrong, it doesn’t even say anything I disagree with. As usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about and nothing of any intellectual substance to add to the conversation.
#96
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
It says you are wrong to think the insanely small chance that MSNBC was right and Trump will start a civil war was enough to deter more than half the country from voting in their best interests. Charlemagne called the elite media out on the obvious BS hyperbole, and so did most of America.

BTW, your Nostradamus, MSNBC is currently losing a ton of viewership post election, mostly because it stopped the Orangemanbad lies.

Without food, your cult is donezo.
#97
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It says you are wrong to think the insanely small chance that MSNBC was right and Trump will start a civil war was enough to deter more than half the country from voting in their best interests.
As usual, you just make shit up to refute. I'm talking about what is actually right, not what uneducated people think is right.

It's crazy how you talk about the "insanely small chance" that reelecting Trump would lead to a civil war as something that shouldn't factor into one's vote. One of the greatest responsibilities of the president is to hold the country together. That's what Abraham Lincoln did and for that he is widely considered the best president in US history, meanwhile the guy who preceded him is widely considered the worst.

This is because people understand (or used to) that you don't need probable certainty of a bad outcome in order to go to great lengths to avoid that outcome. You don't put on a seatbelt because you think you're going to crash. You don't pay into a term life insurance policy because you think you're going to die. The mere possibility is enough to make these precautions a rational tradeoff. With Trump we did the exact opposite. With him we decided that the American experiment was worth risking because we're paying to much for groceries. That is unforgivable.

BTW, your Nostradamus, MSNBC
Are you this stupid on purpose?

MSNBC is currently losing a ton of viewership post election
They'll be back with a vengeance. People are checking out because they're angry and feeling despair, but once that wears off they'll be right back and being the party out of power is always good for viewership. David Packman lost like 5k subscribers the day after the election, since then he's netted a 10k increase. So sorry you're death of liberal media wet dream is just that. My condolences.
#98
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
No serious person would claim Trump would have accepted the results if he lost
and that's your definition of a "threat to democracy"?

#99
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,888
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and that's your definition of a "threat to democracy"?

1} Democracy works whether smart { no Jan 6th } or,

......1a} dumb { Jan 6th and 2024 }.

2} Dumb falsehoods  vs smart truths exists { get over it },

3}  MADA and MAFA { Make Americal Fat Again } is dumb aspects of democracy { old news },

4} MADA/MAFA trifecta  now makes the rules, which will unfold in a future we all speculate about { old news },

5} Evangelical right praise  Trumpet as the new God who will save us all.

6} That dumb can increase over time is old news ergo the saying dumb and dumber,

7} ?
#100
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You don't put on a seatbelt because you think you're going to crash. You don't pay into a term life insurance policy because you think you're going to die.
Only a crazy person thinks this way. Everyone makes a risk assessment on everything, including seatbelts.

The risk of death is low and a click is minimal investment.

An analogy that would make sense with the Orangemanbad cult is that the risk of death is high (when it isn't) so we need to install a rollbar cage and wear a neckbrace to drive to the grocery store...
#101
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No serious person would claim Trump would have accepted the results if he lost
and that's your definition of a "threat to democracy"?
As usual, you focus on one small piece of what I said and pretend the rest of it doesn't exist. It's like telling you 1+1+1=3 and you just sit there looking at the 1's going "dUh I don't see a 3 anywhere"
#102
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't put on a seatbelt because you think you're going to crash. You don't pay into a term life insurance policy because you think you're going to die.
Only a crazy person thinks this way. 
Only a moron would argue against this.

Q1: Do you believe you're going to crash when you get in a car?
Q2: Do you wear a seatbelt

An analogy that would make sense with the Orangemanbad cult is that the risk of death is high (when it isn't) so we need to install a rollbar cage and wear a neckbrace to drive to the grocery store...
The analogy went completely over your head, and no this isn't an apt analogy.

My analogy made one central point: You do not need for a bad outcome to be probable in order to take steps to ensure protection. This isn't controversial, it's common sense.

The reason that applies is because people like you excuse voting for Trump on the basis that the chances of him plunging us into civil was is "insanely small". Setting aside the accuracy of your characterization, the implication of your statement is that it isn't a disqualifier for a president to be a potential instigator of a civil war. That's absurd.

In any sane rational world the president is expected to be the nation's primary protector of democracy, not the inspiration for it's failure which the rest of the country must guard against. Electing a president who has contempt for democracy is like hiring a bank robber to be the lead security guard for your jewelry store. Sure, he might not pull off a heist, doesn't mean it was a smart choice. Either way you're still an idiot for putting yourself in that situation.
#103
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Pretty sure if you set a tarriff to 1,000,000%....

exactly ZERO Americans will be paying that tax because a foreign supplier cant undercut his price to pay for that either.